Limiting the damage

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

4 June 2010


Police: co-operation dilemma

Q. I acted for a client in connection with an interview under caution at the police station. Whilst taking instructions before the interview, the client lost his temper and caused damage to the furniture. The police have now asked me to provide a statement with regard to the matter. What is my position?

A. You are not required to provide a statement. However, whilst you owe a duty of confidentiality to the client, this does not extend to this incident, which is not part of the retainer. You could therefore provide a statement if you wished to do so, provided you do not disclose any information which is confidential to the retainer.  

The SRA encourages the profession to cooperate with the police insofar as they can, but you will need to consider the likely impact on the solicitor-client relationship if you are still acting for the client.



One Response to “Limiting the damage”

  1. I have blogged on this here: I argue you seem to me to be saying Rule 1.01 does not take precendence over Rule 1.04

    http://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/public-interest-vs-client-interest/

  2. Richard Moorhead on June 7th, 2010 at 10:06 am

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

The skills shortage in law firms is the biggest threat to handling cybercrime

CLC Roundtable discussion at Malmaison Hotel, Charterhouse Square

The skills shortage in our businesses is the biggest threat to our industry when looking at cybercrime. Cybercriminals are not just after money but are looking for sensitive information too, so the legal services sector is an obvious target. In the last year we have had reports of around £7m of client money being lost to such crime. This is not an IT issue and it should not be left to the IT teams to sort out. It is a high-level responsibility and a board-level issue that must be taken seriously. We suspect that we will look back on 2016 and ask why we didn’t respond quicker.

March 21st, 2017